Definition and Foundation of Knowledge to observe God / the non-material

[lightgigantic]

LG,

But at best all of what you say perhaps casts doubt on how we determine facts. What none of that justifies are assertions as to the certainty of the existence of gods or souls. At best you still only have a speculation.

then on what basis do you use words like "deluded" "fantasy" etc?

While unobserved white ravens cannot be rulled out as possibilties that analogy doesnt work so well on the need for an entire supernatural realm to be possible. We know at least that ravens exist and the issue is one of simple color - but the supernatural has no precedent for comparison - i.e. it isn't a simple matter of pojecting it as an alternate possibility, unlike white ravens.

wherein lies the difficulty?

I have seen 10 000 black ravens
I know black ravens exist
I don't know if white ravens exist

I have seen this world
I know this world exists
I don't know if other world exists

Where does one get the opportunity to say "claims of white ravens/other worlds exist is delusional", without suffering from critical reflexivity?

 

[Cris]

LG,

It is as I said before a matter of degree of speculation. The concept of a white raven is not without precedent, i.e. ravens are known to exist, and white is known to exist. It is not diificult to see how a white raven could exist or come into existence. And while the material world is known to exist it in no way sets a precedent for a supernatural realm that has no precedent and has no parallel or similarity with the material. The analogy with the ravens does not apply here.

And without any precedent for the supernatural, i.e. there is nothing similar on which you can claim it might exist, then the concept lies in the domain of creative imagination - i.e. fantasy. That does not assert that it does not exist but that you have nothing similar on which to draw a parrallel as a basis for a claim that it might exist.

The delusion issue is the next degree of speculation where the claimant positively asserts that the supernatural does exist but cannot show how the claim is any different to the more believable state of delusion.

I am using both terms in their technical sense although I realize such usage also often generates an emotive response from those who hold religious beliefs. That's their problem not mine.

 

[lightgigantic]

LG,

It is as I said before a matter of degree of speculation. The concept of a white raven is not without precedent, i.e. ravens are known to exist, and white is known to exist. It is not diificult to see how a white raven could exist or come into existence. And while the material world is known to exist it in no way sets a precedent for a supernatural realm that has no precedent and has no parallel or similarity with the material. The analogy with the ravens does not apply here.

what process of acquiring knowledge do you apply to say that the material world in no way sets a precedent for the spiritual world?
The only way you could say that is if you have somehow acquired knowledge of the cause (noumena) of the material world.
Given that your advocated standard of discerning truth is empiricism (phenomena) its clear you are just talking about your beliefs.

And without any precedent for the supernatural, i.e. there is nothing similar on which you can claim it might exist, then the concept lies in the domain of creative imagination - i.e. fantasy. That does not assert that it does not exist but that you have nothing similar on which to draw a parrallel as a basis for a claim that it might exist.

as already indicated, you have a similar crisis of belief with your empirical foundation, so its not clear why you have a bias

The delusion issue is the next degree of speculation where the claimant positively asserts that the supernatural does exist but cannot show how the claim is any different to the more believable state of delusion.

the same issue continues - if you can not evidence how empiricism (phenomena) can reveal the cause (noumena), its not clear why your pleads of "delusion" have any value.

You can't even adequately answer questions of "What am I?" yet you feel that your presentations on "What is the universe" are somehow authoritative on the strength of your beliefs (the belief that the phenomenal can reveal the noumenal)

In short all you have is relative knowledge (relative to the senses, relative to phenomana). You have no entrance into noumena

To use this as a platform for elaborating on absolute issues (noumena) is foolishness

I am using both terms in their technical sense although I realize such usage also often generates an emotive response from those who hold religious beliefs. That's their problem not mine.

as indicated clearly above, you are deluded

 

[Cris]

LG,

Black ravens and white ravens are somewhat similar right?

The supernatural by definition has no similarity with the natural. I do not see how you can conclude that the supernatural exists by assuming it is a variation of the natural, e.g. re your analogy between black and white ravens.

you are deluded

Interesting depths you are prepared to plumb. In all my time here ( some 8 years ) I've never called anyone deluded.

 

[lightgigantic]

Cris

Black ravens and white ravens are somewhat similar right?

correct

The supernatural by definition has no similarity with the natural.

Just like black has no similarity to white

I do not see how you can conclude that the supernatural exists by assuming it is a variation of the natural, e.g. re your analogy between black and white ravens.

well I was discussing spiritual worlds and material worlds

“
you are deluded
”
Interesting depths you are prepared to plumb.

do you possess some infallible quality that negates the possibility of being deluded?
(clearly that quality cannot be any sort of empirical standard)

In all my time here ( some 8 years ) I've never called anyone deluded.

pardon me?

03-11-00, 09:30 PM
Prevailing empirical evidence indicates the harsh reality of life that there is no God or gods, no afterlife, and no spirit or soul. For many people these hard facts are unnaceptable and they will seek comfort by indulging in creative and imaginative intellectual concepts like religion, reincarnation, spirituality etc. These all give false hopes and are self-delusional.

clear evidence you are deluded

(PS - the bold indicates delusional comments and the green indicates your affirmation of someone else's deluded state)

 

[Cris]

LG,

03-11-00, 09:30 PM
Prevailing empirical evidence indicates the harsh reality of life that there is no God or gods, no afterlife, and no spirit or soul. For many people these hard facts are unnaceptable and they will seek comfort by indulging in creative and imaginative intellectual concepts like religion, reincarnation, spirituality etc. These all give false hopes and are self-delusional.

clear evidence you are deluded

(PS - the bold indicates delusional comments and the green indicates your affirmation of someone else's deluded state)

And the key phrase was "Prevailing empirical evidence indicates" making it a factual and true statement, especially since you are unable to make any differentiation between delusion and your fantastic claims for the supernatural.

I.e. you have not shown any support that has the same resilience and high quality that comes from empirical knowledge. You still have only speculation or quotes of absence of empirical knowledge.

 

[Cris]

LG,

You can't even adequately answer questions of "What am I?" yet you feel that your presentations on "What is the universe" are somehow authoritative on the strength of your beliefs (the belief that the phenomenal can reveal the noumenal)

It is not so much a belief but the total absence of a need to suspect anything other than material.

The case of “what am I” I’ve addressed many times before – this is the phenomenon of self awareness. It is directly correlated to brain size and complexity. We know most lower life forms do not possess this and we have observed that the more intelligent animals display various simple degrees of this. That correlation overwhelmingly supports the theory that self-awareness is a product of brain. How the brain does that seems to be matter of scientific investigation and analysis, and we do not have the results yet. Note that a new born child is not self-aware – it takes many months before it realizes that it is an individual – i.e. for the necessary neural networks to form.

But you doubtless mean more than self-awareness: Until anyone can show any different I appear to be the product of the neural networks of my brain.

As for noumena: These are the products of our mind. I do not see why concepts of the supernatural or spirituality need enter as a cause or source.

 

[lightgigantic]

Cris

“
You can't even adequately answer questions of "What am I?" yet you feel that your presentations on "What is the universe" are somehow authoritative on the strength of your beliefs (the belief that the phenomenal can reveal the noumenal)
”
It is not so much a belief but the total absence of a need to suspect anything other than material.

The case of “what am I” I’ve addressed many times before – this is the phenomenon of self awareness. It is directly correlated to brain size and complexity. We know most lower life forms do not possess this and we have observed that the more intelligent animals display various simple degrees of this. That correlation overwhelmingly supports the theory that self-awareness is a product of brain. How the brain does that seems to be matter of scientific investigation and analysis, and we do not have the results yet. Note that a new born child is not self-aware – it takes many months before it realizes that it is an individual – i.e. for the necessary neural networks to form.

once again you are misplacing the term consciousness with emotional states related to consciousness
If a child is born without a sense of consciousness, they are dead

But you doubtless mean more than self-awareness: Until anyone can show any different I appear to be the product of the neural networks of my brain.

compare a dead child with a living one
get back to us with the results

As for noumena: These are the products of our mind. I do not see why concepts of the supernatural or spirituality need enter as a cause or source.

the source of phenomena is our mind?
That doesn't strike you as delusional?




“

Prevailing empirical evidence indicates the harsh reality of life that there is no God or gods, no afterlife, and no spirit or soul. For many people these hard facts are unnaceptable and they will seek comfort by indulging in creative and imaginative intellectual concepts like religion, reincarnation, spirituality etc. These all give false hopes and are self-delusional.

clear evidence you are deluded

(PS - the bold indicates delusional comments and the green indicates your affirmation of someone else's deluded state)
”
And the key phrase was "Prevailing empirical evidence indicates"

if all empiricism can indicate is phenomena, it doesn't matter how much it prevails - it has no scope into the region of noumena

making it a factual and true statement, especially since you are unable to make any differentiation between delusion and your fantastic claims for the supernatural.

from the platform of empiricism, neither can you, so its not clear why you have a bias

I.e. you have not shown any support that has the same resilience and high quality that comes from empirical knowledge.

as already indicated, resilience and high quality is not an outstanding feature of empiricism, hence statements like this from Karl Popper

At no stage are we able to prove that what we now know is true, and it is always possible that it will turn out to be false. Indeed, it is an elementary fact about the intellectual history of mankind that most of what has been known at one time or another has eventually turned out to be not the case. So it is a profound mistake to try to do what scientists and philosophers have almost always tried to do, namely prove the truth of a theory, or justify our belief in a theory, since this is to attempt the logically impossible.

You still have only speculation or quotes of absence of empirical knowledge.

which is why the empircist can only make statements like "I have not seen" as opposed to "you are deluded" without approaching intellectual dishonesty

 

[Cris]

LG,

once again you are misplacing the term consciousness with emotional states related to consciousness

Huh?

“ As for noumena: These are the products of our mind. I do not see why concepts of the supernatural or spirituality need enter as a cause or source. ”

the source of phenomena is our mind?
That doesn't strike you as delusional?

Huh?

from the platform of empiricism, neither can you, so its not clear why you have a bias

The material exists, we know of nothing else. To make speculations based on the material usually has value. We cannot say the equivalent about the supernatural.

as already indicated, resilience and high quality is not an outstanding feature of empiricism, hence statements like this from Karl Popper

At no stage are we able to prove that what we now know is true, and it is always possible that it will turn out to be false. Indeed, it is an elementary fact about the intellectual history of mankind that most of what has been known at one time or another has eventually turned out to be not the case. So it is a profound mistake to try to do what scientists and philosophers have almost always tried to do, namely prove the truth of a theory, or justify our belief in a theory, since this is to attempt the logically impossible.

But modern science doesn’t claim to establish truth or to prove anything. If at all that is the jurisdiction of mathematics. Everything in science is theory and must be falsifiable to be considered valid. Karl Popper asserted that a hypothesis, proposition or theory is scientific only if it is falsifiable. Popper also noted the increasing success of scientific knowledge and explained how it was evolving.

If we consider the speculative assertions for the existence of gods and souls Popper would seemingly reject them easily since they are not falsifiable. Where does that leave your claims?

“ You still have only speculation or quotes of absence of empirical knowledge. ”

which is why the empircist can only make statements like "I have not seen" as opposed to "you are deluded" without approaching intellectual dishonesty

And why would that give you any credibility in positively asserting the certainty that gods and /or souls exist? What is it that you think gives you a superior mechanism for asserting absolute truth?

 

[lightgigantic]

Cris

“
once again you are misplacing the term consciousness with emotional states related to consciousness
”
Huh?

ever wondered why dead people don't express emotions and why living people do?

“
“ As for noumena: These are the products of our mind. I do not see why concepts of the supernatural or spirituality need enter as a cause or source. ”

the source of phenomena is our mind?
That doesn't strike you as delusional?
”
Huh?

A report that tells us with complete certainty that there is no truth beyond what the world seems to us to be is a report about what is outside the range of our senses.
If you don't have the means to determine knowledge outside of your senses, clearly you are speaking nonsense

“
from the platform of empiricism, neither can you, so its not clear why you have a bias
”
The material exists, we know of nothing else.

ditto above

To make speculations based on the material usually has value. We cannot say the equivalent about the supernatural.

perhaps I should just ask you straight out

How do you propose that the senses (phenomenal) can reveal the cause (noumenal) of "reality"?

To make speculations based on the material usually has relative value (relative to the senses).
To use this point as a departure point for a criticism of claims beyond your sensual experience requires that you leave the arena of rationality.

“
as already indicated, resilience and high quality is not an outstanding feature of empiricism, hence statements like this from Karl Popper

At no stage are we able to prove that what we now know is true, and it is always possible that it will turn out to be false. Indeed, it is an elementary fact about the intellectual history of mankind that most of what has been known at one time or another has eventually turned out to be not the case. So it is a profound mistake to try to do what scientists and philosophers have almost always tried to do, namely prove the truth of a theory, or justify our belief in a theory, since this is to attempt the logically impossible.
”
But modern science doesn’t claim to establish truth or to prove anything. If at all that is the jurisdiction of mathematics. Everything in science is theory and must be falsifiable to be considered valid. Karl Popper asserted that a hypothesis, proposition or theory is scientific only if it is falsifiable. Popper also noted the increasing success of scientific knowledge and explained how it was evolving.

that's ok
But when you try to bridge such gaps in empiricism with charges of "delusional" "fantasy" etc, you are speaking of your own personal beliefs. To try and borrow esteem from the credibility of science to make such claims is an indication of intellectual dishonesty

If we consider the speculative assertions for the existence of gods and souls Popper would seemingly reject them easily since they are not falsifiable. Where does that leave your claims?

Which begs the question why you go a step further than Popper with words such as delusional, etc.

There is a big difference between the words "I do not know god" and "If you know god you are deluded"

“
“ You still have only speculation or quotes of absence of empirical knowledge. ”

which is why the empircist can only make statements like "I have not seen" as opposed to "you are deluded" without approaching intellectual dishonesty
”
And why would that give you any credibility in positively asserting the certainty that gods and /or souls exist? What is it that you think gives you a superior mechanism for asserting absolute truth?

My claim is that theistic truths have a foundation of acquiring knowledge other than empiricism.
Of course you can dismiss that, but since you don't fulfill the requirements for that process, it amounts to nothing more than your opinion or belief.

When you take this a step further, and try to make positive claims of "you are deluded" on the strength of empiricism is when you get into epistemological hot water.

Your inability to answer how the phenomenal (the senses) can reveal the noumenal (cause) indicates that to some degree that you are also aware of this - thus the full picture of intellectual dishonesty emerges ....

 

[Cris]

LG,

ever wondered why dead people don't express emotions and why living people do?

No more so than wondering why a light doesn’t work until I turn on the switch. To be alive the cells need their metabolic processes to be functioning.

A report that tells us with complete certainty that there is no truth beyond what the world seems to us to be is a report about what is outside the range of our senses.

That statement appears to be contradictory. I believe that what you are leading to is that knowledge can be obtained outside of the senses.

If you don't have the means to determine knowledge outside of your senses, clearly you are speaking nonsense

I assume here that what you mean is that the human mind can develop knowledge through thought alone. For example I can conceive of justice. This is not something we can observe with the senses but is otherwise quite real. There are many other such examples. These are what I see as noumena i.e. essentially thoughts.

My claim is that theistic truths have a foundation of acquiring knowledge other than empiricism.

Understood, but I don’t see how those “thoughts” can lead to a substantive supernatural reality that by necessity must exist outside of pure thought. In this case the end result must be a phenomenon and not noumenon, and where it should be available to empirical stsudy if it realy exists.

 

[Cris]

LG,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noumenon

Studying this ref some more.

I think you are perhaps stretching the concept of noumena beyond the bounds of its definition in trying to include a basis for a god/soul introduction.

Noumena does seem to be litle more than thoughtful reasoning.

 

[lightgigantic]

Cris

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noumenon

Studying this ref some more.

I think you are perhaps stretching the concept of noumena beyond the bounds of its definition in trying to include a basis for a god/soul introduction.

Noumena does seem to be litle more than thoughtful reasoning.

so what do you make of the intro ?

The noumenon (plural: noumena) classically refers to an object of human inquiry, understanding or cognition. The term is generally used in contrast with, or in relation to, "phenomenon" (plural: phenomena), which refers to appearances, or objects of the senses.

If I clap my hands and you hear it in another room, my clapping is the noumena and the sound it emits (and thus your hearing of it) is the phenomena.

The reasoning is, behind every phenomena there is a nomena, or behind every effect there is a cause

The problem with empiricism is that it can only reveal one phenomena by indicating another phenomena - and thus can never actually arrive to any absolute value

Why else do you think Karl Popper (who is closer to your "camp" than mine) makes statements like

At no stage are we able to prove that what we now know is true, and it is always possible that it will turn out to be false. Indeed, it is an elementary fact about the intellectual history of mankind that most of what has been known at one time or another has eventually turned out to be not the case. So it is a profound mistake to try to do what scientists and philosophers have almost always tried to do, namely prove the truth of a theory, or justify our belief in a theory, since this is to attempt the logically impossible.

“
ever wondered why dead people don't express emotions and why living people do?
”
No more so than wondering why a light doesn’t work until I turn on the switch. To be alive the cells need their metabolic processes to be functioning.

thus you can truthfully say "I am happy" "I am hungry" but not "I am dead"

“
A report that tells us with complete certainty that there is no truth beyond what the world seems to us to be is a report about what is outside the range of our senses.
”
That statement appears to be contradictory. I believe that what you are leading to is that knowledge can be obtained outside of the senses.

this type of report is actually what you are advocating when you say "You are deluded" as opposed to "I don't know"
- in other words if you say "I know you don't know" the only way that could be truthful is if you have a report on what lies beyond the purview of your mind and senses.
And since you are firmly situated in empiricism/rationalism, its not clear how that is possible (hence your whole issue suffers from critical reflexivity)

“
If you don't have the means to determine knowledge outside of your senses, clearly you are speaking nonsense
”
I assume here that what you mean is that the human mind can develop knowledge through thought alone. For example I can conceive of justice. This is not something we can observe with the senses but is otherwise quite real. There are many other such examples. These are what I see as noumena i.e. essentially thoughts.

the noumena of "justice" is just as relative as me clapping my hands - if I were to ask you what is the cause of the notion of justice, you couldn't ultimately answer such a train of inquiry without speculating.

“
My claim is that theistic truths have a foundation of acquiring knowledge other than empiricism.
”
Understood, but I don’t see how those “thoughts” can lead to a substantive supernatural reality that by necessity must exist outside of pure thought.
In this case the end result must be a phenomenon and not noumenon, and where it should be available to empirical stsudy if it realy exists.

There are two parts to the answer

the first is that what we know of as "mind" (likes and dislikes) or "intelligence" (compiles varieties and discriminates) are merely phenomena of the soul - in otherwords it is advocated that one can come to a higher grade of consciousness and be on the platform of noumena (soul) as opposed to phenomena (mind/intelligence)
(according to our consciousness our ego is either phenomenal (material) or noumenal (spiritual)

the second is that behind all the phenomena of this world that empiricism and rationalism is busy sifting through is an ultimate cause or noumena, god

Thus the perfection of religious principles is for the noumena of our existence to be interacting with the noumena of the universe.

Even if you can only comprehend this theoretically, surely you can understand that there is no greater gain in life

 

[Cris]

LG,

so what do you make of the intro ?

Too short of examples and not adequately precise. It leaves too much open to opinion and interpretation. Looking beyond that link to many others there is considerable disagreement over what noumena means and even criticism of Kant’s perspective.

If I clap my hands and you hear it in another room, my clapping is the noumena and the sound it emits (and thus your hearing of it) is the phenomena.

The reasoning is, behind every phenomena there is a nomena, or behind every effect there is a cause

That example doesn’t work very well for me since what I see is a phenomenon (the physical observable and measurable action of hand clapping) that results in another phenomenon, i.e. my hearing.

I need to tie down this concept much deeper than my current comprehension before I am fully able to respond to your perspective. Please bear with me.

The problem with empiricism is that it can only reveal one phenomena by indicating another phenomena - and thus can never actually arrive to any absolute value

I would tentatively question here the assumption that an absolute value is a necessity. If we consider the model of an infinite universe with no beginning then what would result would be one phenomenon being the cause of another in an infinite series.

the noumena of "justice" is just as relative as me clapping my hands - if I were to ask you what is the cause of the notion of justice, you couldn't ultimately answer such a train of inquiry without speculating.

I think I might agree. I would speculate that the justice concept is the result of reasoned thought. And at the moment with our current lack of knowledge on how the brain operates I would not be able to empirically show how that notion had developed.

My claim is that theistic truths have a foundation of acquiring knowledge other than empiricism.
”
Understood, but I don’t see how those “thoughts” can lead to a substantive supernatural reality that by necessity must exist outside of pure thought.
In this case the end result must be a phenomenon and not noumenon, and where it should be available to empirical study if it realy exists. ”

There are two parts to the answer

the first is that what we know of as "mind" (likes and dislikes) or "intelligence" (compiles varieties and discriminates) are merely phenomena of the soul - in otherwords it is advocated that one can come to a higher grade of consciousness and be on the platform of noumena (soul) as opposed to phenomena (mind/intelligence)
(according to our consciousness our ego is either phenomenal (material) or noumenal (spiritual)

the second is that behind all the phenomena of this world that empiricism and rationalism is busy sifting through is an ultimate cause or noumena, god

Thus the perfection of religious principles is for the noumena of our existence to be interacting with the noumena of the universe.

Even if you can only comprehend this theoretically, surely you can understand that there is no greater gain in life

I’ll need to come back to this a little more but for now my tentative answer would be –

The noumena causes you offer here, i.e. god and souls, still represent non-material sources. In all other examples of noumena I can conceive there is always a material component. E.g. the concept of justice arises when a physical brain is present. I’ll refrain from suggesting that the concept arises as a result of brain activity, although I don’t believe the proposal would be unreasonable. I would suggest that you would find it difficult to offer any noumena where the material is not present or cause. If so then the leap to an immaterial god/soul as a source of noumena is without justification.

 

[lightgigantic]

Cris

“
so what do you make of the intro ?
”
Too short of examples and not adequately precise. It leaves too much open to opinion and interpretation. Looking beyond that link to many others there is considerable disagreement over what noumena means and even criticism of Kant’s perspective.

so what contentions do you have with


The noumenon (plural: noumena) classically refers to an object of human inquiry, understanding or cognition. The term is generally used in contrast with, or in relation to, "phenomenon" (plural: phenomena), which refers to appearances, or objects of the senses.

If me clapping my hands a noumena and you hearing it in a separate room is the phenomena, where does the controversy arise?

“
If I clap my hands and you hear it in another room, my clapping is the noumena and the sound it emits (and thus your hearing of it) is the phenomena.

The reasoning is, behind every phenomena there is a nomena, or behind every effect there is a cause
”
That example doesn’t work very well for me since what I see is a phenomenon (the physical observable and measurable action of hand clapping) that results in another phenomenon, i.e. my hearing.

I need to tie down this concept much deeper than my current comprehension before I am fully able to respond to your perspective. Please bear with me.

even your seeing remains a phenomena, since just like the noise emanates from my action and is detected by your sense of hearing, you pick up reflections of light from my action by your sense of sight

“
The problem with empiricism is that it can only reveal one phenomena by indicating another phenomena - and thus can never actually arrive to any absolute value
”
I would tentatively question here the assumption that an absolute value is a necessity.

It is if you want to use words like "deluded" in describing persons who make claims beyond your direct sensory perception
(In other words saying such things indicates that you have an absolute stance - introspection clearly indicates it is merely releative)

If we consider the model of an infinite universe with no beginning then what would result would be one phenomenon being the cause of another in an infinite series.

this leaves us with the issue why things tend to behave in a predictable fashion - in other words if the cause of an effect is infinite and the effect of a cause is infinite, there would be no reason for the laws of physics to operate (there would be no reason why an apple couldn't fly off into the sky instead of falling down to the earth)

“
the noumena of "justice" is just as relative as me clapping my hands - if I were to ask you what is the cause of the notion of justice, you couldn't ultimately answer such a train of inquiry without speculating.
”
I think I might agree. I would speculate that the justice concept is the result of reasoned thought. And at the moment with our current lack of knowledge on how the brain operates I would not be able to empirically show how that notion had developed.

hence tracing causes with empiricism is ultimately futile - the reason is that empirical knowledge is essentially tacit

If I had to describe [this] right hand of mine, which I am now holding up, I may say different things of it: I may state its size, its shape, its color, its tissue, the chemical compound of its bones, its cells, and perhaps add some more particulars; but, however far I go, I shall never reach a point where my description will be completed: logically speaking, it is always possible to extend the description by adding some detail or other.
- Friedrich Waismann

we all know explicitly what a "hand" is - but empirical definitions cannot convey that understanding in full (hence the term, "tacit")

“
My claim is that theistic truths have a foundation of acquiring knowledge other than empiricism.
”
Understood, but I don’t see how those “thoughts” can lead to a substantive supernatural reality that by necessity must exist outside of pure thought.
In this case the end result must be a phenomenon and not noumenon, and where it should be available to empirical study if it realy exists. ”

part of this knowledge involves being conscious on a level that is superior to the mind (or "thought") - in other words it is understood that the mind is a phenomena of our consciousness, as opposed to the noumena of our consciousness - this is what separates theistic knowledge from traditional models of philosophy, even if that sense of philosophy is somewhat compatible with theistic values (like say plato)

There are two parts to the answer

the first is that what we know of as "mind" (likes and dislikes) or "intelligence" (compiles varieties and discriminates) are merely phenomena of the soul - in otherwords it is advocated that one can come to a higher grade of consciousness and be on the platform of noumena (soul) as opposed to phenomena (mind/intelligence)
(according to our consciousness our ego is either phenomenal (material) or noumenal (spiritual)

the second is that behind all the phenomena of this world that empiricism and rationalism is busy sifting through is an ultimate cause or noumena, god

Thus the perfection of religious principles is for the noumena of our existence to be interacting with the noumena of the universe.

Even if you can only comprehend this theoretically, surely you can understand that there is no greater gain in life
”
I’ll need to come back to this a little more but for now my tentative answer would be –

The noumena causes you offer here, i.e. god and souls, still represent non-material sources. In all other examples of noumena I can conceive there is always a material component. E.g. the concept of justice arises when a physical brain is present. I’ll refrain from suggesting that the concept arises as a result of brain activity, although I don’t believe the proposal would be unreasonable. I would suggest that you would find it difficult to offer any noumena where the material is not present or cause. If so then the leap to an immaterial god/soul as a source of noumena is without justification.

it is the purpose of analogy to call upon something known to illustrate something unknown
the analogies given for noumena (clapping, justice, etc) are actually relative noumena - which is just another way of saying they are phenomena - in otherwords anything that falls within in the purview of empiricism is essentially phenomenal (ie tacit). To require that one indicate a tacit noumena is an oxymoron.

 

[Cris]

LG,

“ If we consider the model of an infinite universe with no beginning then what would result would be one phenomenon being the cause of another in an infinite series. ”

this leaves us with the issue why things tend to behave in a predictable fashion

No it doesn’t if the laws of behavior are fixed. Causes and effects simply then correspond to participating components obeying fixed laws. E.g. two particles exist according to fixed laws, if one collides with another, a cause, a specific effect will result.

in other words if the cause of an effect is infinite and the effect of a cause is infinite, there would be no reason for the laws of physics to operate (there would be no reason why an apple couldn't fly off into the sky instead of falling down to the earth)

Your conclusion doesn’t appear to follow from the proposition. Why would the laws of physics need to change for an infinite series of events to occur? I see no relationship.

I think I might agree. I would speculate that the justice concept is the result of reasoned thought. And at the moment with our current lack of knowledge on how the brain operates I would not be able to empirically show how that notion had developed. ”

hence tracing causes with empiricism is ultimately futile - the reason is that empirical knowledge is essentially tacit

I see no basis for such an absolute conclusion, and I don’t see why your offered reason has any bearing.

If I had to describe [this] right hand of mine, which I am now holding up, I may say different things of it: I may state its size, its shape, its color, its tissue, the chemical compound of its bones, its cells, and perhaps add some more particulars; but, however far I go, I shall never reach a point where my description will be completed: logically speaking, it is always possible to extend the description by adding some detail or other.
- Friedrich Waismann

we all know explicitly what a "hand" is - but empirical definitions cannot convey that understanding in full (hence the term, "tacit")

And why is that relevant to our discussion? I believe I would disagree with your assertion of “cannot” and would prefer the technical scientific concept of theory where the potential for additional details is always left open.

But what do you mean by full understanding and why is that important? For example I do not need a full understanding of someone’s hand to be able to shake it, similarly for the case of knowing that a hand can hold a hammer. OTOH a surgeon may need to know extremely microscopic detail to be able to sew back a finger torn off through a grotesque accident, yet he wouldn’t need the detail down to the atomic level.

Isn’t the degree of any understanding of anything relative to our need at the time? For example I can understand that a highly skilled and qualified brain surgeon can operate on someone suffering from brain damage and save their life. I do not need to have an understanding of the “how of brain surgery” to be able to observe the effect.

Understood, but I don’t see how those “thoughts” can lead to a substantive supernatural reality that by necessity must exist outside of pure thought.
In this case the end result must be a phenomenon and not noumenon, and where it should be available to empirical study if it realy exists. ” ”

part of this knowledge involves being conscious on a level that is superior to the mind (or "thought") - in other words it is understood that the mind is a phenomena of our consciousness, as opposed to the noumena of our consciousness - this is what separates theistic knowledge from traditional models of philosophy, even if that sense of philosophy is somewhat compatible with theistic values (like say plato)

None of that really made any sense to me so I need to break it down.

part of this knowledge involves being conscious on a level that is superior to the mind (or "thought")

This doesn’t make sense. Being conscious is a result of mind and thought; it is nonsense to talk of one being superior to the other. It is like saying a chair is superior to the wood, nails, and glue that are its components.

in other words it is understood that the mind is a phenomena of our consciousness, as opposed to the noumena of our consciousness –

Sorry I don’t follow that – I simply see – Brain -> Mind -> Consciousness – i.e. the root source of consciousness appears to be the physical brain and nuances of noumena/phenomena do not seem to change that perspective, i.e. I still do not see a path to a non-material construct of any type.

The noumena causes you offer here, i.e. god and souls, still represent non-material sources. In all other examples of noumena I can conceive there is always a material component. E.g. the concept of justice arises when a physical brain is present. I’ll refrain from suggesting that the concept arises as a result of brain activity, although I don’t believe the proposal would be unreasonable. I would suggest that you would find it difficult to offer any noumena where the material is not present or cause. If so then the leap to an immaterial god/soul as a source of noumena is without justification. ”

it is the purpose of analogy to call upon something known to illustrate something unknown
the analogies given for noumena (clapping, justice, etc) are actually relative noumena - which is just another way of saying they are phenomena - in otherwords anything that falls within in the purview of empiricism is essentially phenomenal (ie tacit). To require that one indicate a tacit noumena is an oxymoron.

But that simply leaves me without any examples or precedents where a root cause can be anything other than material.

 

[Enmos]

LG,

on the car analogy: do you consider, for instance, insects to have a consciousness ? Or a robot with AI ?

 

[lightgigantic]

LG,

on the car analogy: do you consider, for instance, insects to have a consciousness ? Or a robot with AI ?

insects certainly have consciousness
as for a robot, despite whatever facility they have for analyzing data, they are unable to place any value on such information, since they have no sense of "I"

 

[Enmos]

insects certainly have consciousness
as for a robot, despite whatever facility they have for analyzing data, they are unable to place any value on such information, since they have no sense of "I"

But they can steer themselves. Where is the man in the car ?

 

[Godless]

insects certainly have consciousness

Yes but they can't reason!

Just cause an entity supposedly posses consciousness does not automatically mean that it can reason, and there lies the difference between all existing beings, as we know it scientifically only humans in this planet have the ability to reason. Though some entities on this planet other then humans have a sense of self awareness. Primates of certain species have been shown to be self aware, and have the ability to make tools for hunting, birds even have been shown to "learn" different ways to figure out problems, they are certainly all conscious, however none other then the human & chimps have developed a sense of "I"

as for a robot, despite whatever facility they have for analyzing data, they are unable to place any value on such information, since they have no sense of "I"

I disagree, since AI is a bit more complex than what you seem to understand. A robot with a the capability to learn can develop consciousness and self awareness, all the paradigms are there just as a human baby learns and becomes self aware. We are on the verge of creating a new life form.



http://news.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/0,1000000091,2083908,00.htm